On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 9:17 PM <ivan.grif...@microchip.com> wrote: > > > I agree with Bin here. You shouldn't introduce a new compatible just for > > u-boot. If you need one, please to it first in linux and get an ACK there. > > Or at least there should be patches for it pending in linux and it should > > be likely, that they will be accepted. > > > > Please work towards having one binding for u-boot and linux. > > > > -michael > > I think both Michael and Bin are right, but that maybe this has gone circular. > > IIRC, Linux *doesn't need* any extra bindings because its driver already > supports 64-bit DMA. > > Padmarao's original patch added equivalent 64-bit functionality to the > driver in U-Boot, but this was rejected. >
I am not sure why it was rejected. Is that because it breaks some other platforms? > Instead I think the suggestion was to add a device-tree binding to choose 32 > or > 64-bit DMA... however, there is no reasonably way of upstreaming this into > the Linux device-tree, as Linux doesn't need it... so he is left in a > Catch-22. > > A way forward may be to go back to his original approach and get the U-Boot > driver functionality updated so that it works similarly to the Linux driver > (and thus can use the same device-tree stanza)? Let's go back to the original approach and see what happens. Regards, Bin
